Scan barcode
libraryzen's review
2.0
This book has some useful information but is mostly useless by today's standards. It contains too much creator nonsense which also implies that it is a work of guilt by a man who sent his own children away to be raised.
thejdizzler's review
4.0
Read with Tessa, Simon, Amanda, and Dylan for Philosophy Book Club. Took us a while to get through this one, but once we switched from a line-by-line type of analysis to more discussion based format, this book went a lot smoother.
Half-parenting guide, half-profound philosophy, I really enjoyed spending time with Rousseau as he explained how he would raise his hypothetical perfect child (ironically even though he had seven children, all of them ended up in orphanages/foster houses, something that Rousseau later expressed regret about). The name of the game here was almost a sole focus on empiricism: Emile would learn almost exclusively from nature, not from books or lessons. Only later, once this empirical way of looking at the world had been deeply sown into his soul would abstract, rational book-learning be allowed. This type of education was favored to encourage self-reliance and favorable relations to other members of society: if one's daily bread comes from one's own work, it is less likely that one will exploit, or resent other people in society for simply being competition.
The early sections read like an advertisement for Montessori schooling (which if I ever have kids I will do). However, it was in the later sections that I found Rousseau's philosophy to be most interesting. The section of this book that got it banned in pre-Revolutionary France (and Rousseau condemned by the church) discusses the universality of all religions, and the importance of focusing one's religious actions on growing closer to God, rather than following specific doctrines. As someone who is perhaps starting to realize that they strongly disagree with certain doctrines of the Catholic Church, this was really cool to hear, and provides some relief that I haven't "done fucked up" so bad after all. The famous misogyny section where Rousseau discusses the raising of Emile's hypothetical wife also was not as terrible as I thought. Yes, there is some horrible gender essentialism, but it's clear that Rousseau still admires and respects women. The sixty-odd pages of their courtship was very sweet, and reminded me a lot of pride and prejudice.
The gender essentialism, plus I think the failure of Rousseau's project to integrate Emile into society (the answer is not a cabin in the woods), takes a star off for me, but this was still a great read. On to Jung!
Half-parenting guide, half-profound philosophy, I really enjoyed spending time with Rousseau as he explained how he would raise his hypothetical perfect child (ironically even though he had seven children, all of them ended up in orphanages/foster houses, something that Rousseau later expressed regret about). The name of the game here was almost a sole focus on empiricism: Emile would learn almost exclusively from nature, not from books or lessons. Only later, once this empirical way of looking at the world had been deeply sown into his soul would abstract, rational book-learning be allowed. This type of education was favored to encourage self-reliance and favorable relations to other members of society: if one's daily bread comes from one's own work, it is less likely that one will exploit, or resent other people in society for simply being competition.
The early sections read like an advertisement for Montessori schooling (which if I ever have kids I will do). However, it was in the later sections that I found Rousseau's philosophy to be most interesting. The section of this book that got it banned in pre-Revolutionary France (and Rousseau condemned by the church) discusses the universality of all religions, and the importance of focusing one's religious actions on growing closer to God, rather than following specific doctrines. As someone who is perhaps starting to realize that they strongly disagree with certain doctrines of the Catholic Church, this was really cool to hear, and provides some relief that I haven't "done fucked up" so bad after all. The famous misogyny section where Rousseau discusses the raising of Emile's hypothetical wife also was not as terrible as I thought. Yes, there is some horrible gender essentialism, but it's clear that Rousseau still admires and respects women. The sixty-odd pages of their courtship was very sweet, and reminded me a lot of pride and prejudice.
The gender essentialism, plus I think the failure of Rousseau's project to integrate Emile into society (the answer is not a cabin in the woods), takes a star off for me, but this was still a great read. On to Jung!
munvv's review
1.0
[1,5]
Realmente no se lo recomendaría a nadie, por favor no lo tomen como un modelo educativo.
Rousseau tuvo CINCO hijos, a los cuales abandono. Los abandono a todos y luego hace un libro sobre cómo criar a un niño... Es increíble.
" Rousseau consideraba que si el cuerpo no estaba en perfectas condiciones el ser humano no era útil para la sociedad, y no estaba siquiera en condición de aprovechar cualquier esfuerzo que se hiciera por educarlo, por lo que era hacerle perder el tiempo a su maestro, y por tanto "duplicar la pérdida para lo sociedad y quitarle dos hombres por uno" (Emilio)."
De que, horrible! Y además de tener un capítulo entero sobre cómo la mujer solo servía para parir la máxima cantidad de hijos que pudiera...
Machismo y Disablismo!! Terrible el libro, super sufrido pero bueno, como era para un trabajo de pedagogía aquí dejo....
Realmente no se lo recomendaría a nadie, por favor no lo tomen como un modelo educativo.
Rousseau tuvo CINCO hijos, a los cuales abandono. Los abandono a todos y luego hace un libro sobre cómo criar a un niño... Es increíble.
" Rousseau consideraba que si el cuerpo no estaba en perfectas condiciones el ser humano no era útil para la sociedad, y no estaba siquiera en condición de aprovechar cualquier esfuerzo que se hiciera por educarlo, por lo que era hacerle perder el tiempo a su maestro, y por tanto "duplicar la pérdida para lo sociedad y quitarle dos hombres por uno" (Emilio)."
De que, horrible! Y además de tener un capítulo entero sobre cómo la mujer solo servía para parir la máxima cantidad de hijos que pudiera...
Machismo y Disablismo!! Terrible el libro, super sufrido pero bueno, como era para un trabajo de pedagogía aquí dejo....
uderecife's review against another edition
4.0
A Huge "Thought Experiment"
Rousseau wants to reform the state of the decadent human institutions of his time. And what best place to start with than by educating people to be good citizens? So the philosopher conceives of a thought experiment where he plays the role of a tutor for more than 20 years of a young scholar named Emile. It's through this experience that we start to grasp the scope of his criticisms, and the way he wants to prepare people for the coming of a new order.
Throughout the text, readers are instilled to think on their own, to come to terms with a new way of thinking Man[kind] from its most profound roots, and how a child must be raised in conformity to nature (his/her nature, as Rousseau conceives it). So the child must be raised free, equal to all others around him/her, and connected to all through bonds of natural fraternity. As Emile grows, the goal starts to become more and more clear, as grows the scope of criticisms and reform proposals.
Rousseau shows himself as a very passionate writer, one who's not afraid in taking stances about a wide range of issues. The downside of this is that there are some portions of this book (specially Book IV) that are heavily outdated; nonetheless, with a sober hermeneutical attitude, one can somehow overcome these deficiencies to grasp a higher order of meaning underlying the whole of it (including the heavily time/place-specific context).
With so much to gain from it, this book is must-read, specially if one is interested in philosophy.
Rousseau wants to reform the state of the decadent human institutions of his time. And what best place to start with than by educating people to be good citizens? So the philosopher conceives of a thought experiment where he plays the role of a tutor for more than 20 years of a young scholar named Emile. It's through this experience that we start to grasp the scope of his criticisms, and the way he wants to prepare people for the coming of a new order.
Throughout the text, readers are instilled to think on their own, to come to terms with a new way of thinking Man[kind] from its most profound roots, and how a child must be raised in conformity to nature (his/her nature, as Rousseau conceives it). So the child must be raised free, equal to all others around him/her, and connected to all through bonds of natural fraternity. As Emile grows, the goal starts to become more and more clear, as grows the scope of criticisms and reform proposals.
Rousseau shows himself as a very passionate writer, one who's not afraid in taking stances about a wide range of issues. The downside of this is that there are some portions of this book (specially Book IV) that are heavily outdated; nonetheless, with a sober hermeneutical attitude, one can somehow overcome these deficiencies to grasp a higher order of meaning underlying the whole of it (including the heavily time/place-specific context).
With so much to gain from it, this book is must-read, specially if one is interested in philosophy.
rclyburn's review
3.0
Book I: How to raise an infant. Assuming you'll be using a wet nurse. Interesting from a historical, not philosophical perspective. Most racist portion of the book. You can really see the lack of scientific rigor, with Rousseau pulling a random incident and projecting from there.
Book II: Childhood. About raising a child with the principle of liberty at the forefront. Not forcing a child to learn without understanding. I think this is the part that the French rely on in their education system.
Book III: Adolescence. Try to hold off rising passions as much as possible. Can finally actually teach them something! This is the section with the huge faith digression. I really enjoyed this section! It was about obtaining faith via reason rather than religion which really mirrors my own spiritual views.
Book IV: Adulthood. Now passions may reign! This is about how to find a life partner. Delay and be choosy.
Book V: How to raise a woman. Skip this book! Extremely sexist. Basically women are to be raised as to not cuckold men. We also have the courtship of Emile and Sophy. There is a short portion on citizenship which you may find interesting.
Book II: Childhood. About raising a child with the principle of liberty at the forefront. Not forcing a child to learn without understanding. I think this is the part that the French rely on in their education system.
Book III: Adolescence. Try to hold off rising passions as much as possible. Can finally actually teach them something! This is the section with the huge faith digression. I really enjoyed this section! It was about obtaining faith via reason rather than religion which really mirrors my own spiritual views.
Book IV: Adulthood. Now passions may reign! This is about how to find a life partner. Delay and be choosy.
Book V: How to raise a woman. Skip this book! Extremely sexist. Basically women are to be raised as to not cuckold men. We also have the courtship of Emile and Sophy. There is a short portion on citizenship which you may find interesting.
aldoojeda's review against another edition
2.0
Al leer Émile, debes tener en cuenta el contexto histórico de la obra. Rousseau fue en su momento uno de los intelectuales de pensamiento más avanzado, aunque hoy —sobre todo el capítulo cinco— choque enormemente con nuestro pensamiento moderno. Aun así, es muy difícil pensar en la utilidad de un método Rousseau en la educación.
jocelynw's review
3.0
Rousseau's mistress bore him five children, and he turned each of them over to a foundling hospital on the day of their birth.
As I started reading this treatise on education, in which Rousseau writes about how differently he would educate his theoretical pupil than what was done conventionally at the time, and goes about congratulating himself on how much better this theoretical pupil will turn out than the
losers that comprise the rest of the world, my first thought was, "Did Rousseau have any children, and if so, did he educate them according to his theories?" And it turns out he had five chances, and took none of them.
Thus I'm not sure why I should spend 350 pages on a treatise on childrearing by this dude, but I did, and my husband can probably tell you that it is the book that has most rankled me in a long time. Part of our pillow time two nights in a row included a large number of preposterous or offensive quotes that I read aloud to him in an arch and sarcastic manner. And having now completed it, I can tell you that the insufferable self-congratulation about his nonexistent subject's awesomeness continues from start to finish. It is slightly irritating.
There is also a bonus sexism section! You get to find out all about the contradictory expectations he has of women.
I will give the guy this: he is relentlessly quotable. At least my reading this resulted in flagging a number of quotes that will be helpful to my husband the next time he teaches his philosophy and gender class.
As I started reading this treatise on education, in which Rousseau writes about how differently he would educate his theoretical pupil than what was done conventionally at the time, and goes about congratulating himself on how much better this theoretical pupil will turn out than the
losers that comprise the rest of the world, my first thought was, "Did Rousseau have any children, and if so, did he educate them according to his theories?" And it turns out he had five chances, and took none of them.
Thus I'm not sure why I should spend 350 pages on a treatise on childrearing by this dude, but I did, and my husband can probably tell you that it is the book that has most rankled me in a long time. Part of our pillow time two nights in a row included a large number of preposterous or offensive quotes that I read aloud to him in an arch and sarcastic manner. And having now completed it, I can tell you that the insufferable self-congratulation about his nonexistent subject's awesomeness continues from start to finish. It is slightly irritating.
There is also a bonus sexism section! You get to find out all about the contradictory expectations he has of women.
I will give the guy this: he is relentlessly quotable. At least my reading this resulted in flagging a number of quotes that will be helpful to my husband the next time he teaches his philosophy and gender class.
solennreadsbooks's review against another edition
3.0
mansplaining education when you abandon your five children is a lil stupid